ID is not creationism

[RickSp]

One of the often oversued terms on this board is the "strawman". So it is with some regret that I use it. Nevertheless Warren has been creating strawmen to knock down at a remarkable rate.

I might as well stop using the pretentious and unnecessary word - teleology. and use the far more serviceable one - design, instead. There are probably very few scientists who wouldn't love to find evidence of design. The claim that there are "social and psychological dynamics" to be overcome in recognizing the role of design is absurd. This is a theistic society. A scientist that could demonstrate intelligent design in a proveable repeatable fashion would guarantee his place in the history books as well as beginning to resolve one of the largest metaphysical conflicts in human history. Also any claim that ID is so subtle that scientists might miss it is equally absurd. Then again so is Warren's apparent unwillingess to resond to what seem to me to be completely reasonable questions. The problem is that ID, as defined by most of its advocates, is unproveable. Plain and simple.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Warren Okay, lets cut to the chase. I have no idea what you would count as evidence for ID. Care to spell it out?

I have no idea either. Typically the evidence precedes a theory, not vice-versa.

Quote by: Warren And while you are at it why don't you present your evidence for a non-teleological origin of life.

I'm sure it's been covered in detail in the "Evolution vs. Creationism" thread.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Warren Okay, lets cut to the chase. I have no idea what you would count as evidence for ID. Care to spell it out?

Any evidence of any form that can be demonstrated by experiment and is repeatable. Very simple.

But why are you asking us? Shouldn't you be the one suggesting the evidence?

[Warren]

Belverron: Oh, and I'm still waiting for an answer to my question: How do you reconcile irreducible complexity with any form of evolution?

Warren: Thornhill and Ussery rule out two Darwinian routes to IC systems, namely, serial direct Darwinian evolution and Parallel direct Darwinian evolution. That leaves two other possible routes in which evolution can generate IC systems, that of Elimination of functional redundancy and Adoption from a different function. These routes are unlikely but not impossible.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Warren Belverron: Oh, and I'm still waiting for an answer to my question: How do you reconcile irreducible complexity with any form of evolution? Warren: Thornhill and Ussery rule out two Darwinian routes to IC systems, namely, serial direct Darwinian evolution and Parallel direct Darwinian evolution. That leaves two other possible routes in which evolution can generate IC systems, that of Elimination of functional redundancy and Adoption from a different function. These routes are unlikely but not impossible.

Why do you continue to refer to "Darwinian evolution" as if that is the currently preferred explanation in science? Your verbiage appears to be that of a person that has been reading too much literature from people who have been so obsessed by the past that they could not bring themselves to keep up with what is actually going on.

Starboy

[Warren]

Warren:Okay, lets cut to the chase. I have no idea what you would count as evidence for ID. Care to spell it out?

Morgan Freeman: I have no idea either. Typically the evidence precedes a theory, not vice-versa.

Warren: I'm making a point. ID critics say there is no evidence for ID. My question is how do they know this if they have no idea what evidence for ID looks like? I would suspect an open-minded critic to say: "Here is what I would count as evidence for ID. I've looked for it and not found it."

[Warren]

Starboy: Why do you continue to refer to "Darwinian evolution" as if that is the currently preferred explanation in science? Your verbiage appears to be that of a person that has been reading too much literature from people who have been so obsessed by the past that they could not bring themselves to keep up with what is actually going on.

Warren: I answered this question before. The mechanism of Darwinian evolution is random variation and natural selection. Are you saying the "current preferred explanation" proposes a fundamentally different mechanism for the origin of biological complexity?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Warren I'm making a point. ID critics say there is no evidence for ID. My question is how do they know this if they have no idea what evidence for ID looks like? I would suspect an open-minded critic to say: "Here is what I would count as evidence for ID. I've looked for it and not found it."

What are you talking about "fairy dust"? Evidence is evidence, of any sort or type as long as it can be demonstrated and is repeatable. It sounds like you are saying "the evidence is there. You just can't see it."

[Starboy]

Quote by: Warren Starboy: Why do you continue to refer to "Darwinian evolution" as if that is the currently preferred explanation in science? Your verbiage appears to be that of a person that has been reading too much literature from people who have been so obsessed by the past that they could not bring themselves to keep up with what is actually going on. Warren: I answered this question before. The mechanism of Darwinian evolution is random variation and natural selection. Are you saying the "current preferred explanation" proposes a fundamentally different mechanism for the origin of biological complexity?

It has changed greatly since Darwin due to the huge increase of knowledge at the cellular molecular level. It is now possible to compute rates of variation and to determine what variations are not possible from a given genome. The causes of variation are better understood and can be coupled with information regarding cosmic rays, chemical background and normal oxidation. It is a whole new ball game. Many of the ideas of Darwin are still there but the underlying mechanism has been exposed. It is like the difference between thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. One is a phenomenological explanation and the other is based on the behavior of internal mechanisms.

Starboy

PS: Please learn how to use quotes. It will make your posts more readable.

[Warren]

Quote by: RickSp What are you talking about "fairy dust"? Evidence is evidence, of any sort or type as long as it can be demonstrated and is repeatable.

Okay, give me an example. What evidence would cause you to merely suspect design? Surely you can come up with something better than "fairy dust".

[Starboy]

Quote by: Warren Okay, give me an example. What evidence would cause you to merely suspect design? Surely you can come up with something better than "fairy dust".

Warren stop it! You are the one claiming there is a reason to think that life was designed. You must support that claim.

Starboy

[RickSp]

Quote by: Warren Okay, give me an example. What evidence would cause you to merely suspect design? Surely you can come up with something better than "fairy dust".

No, you just don't get it. You present claims about ID, which you refuse to define or even adequately discuss, and then you demand we provide standards of evidence for what you won't bother to define. What a bad joke.

[Jack]

I don't see where any one person's perception of the definition of ID is that important anyway. The creationists have adopted that title as their latest disguise for biblical creationism. That's all ID is known for currently. And the designer being referred to by them is none other than their god.
Any other meaning it may have or had is no longer relevant. The theists have highjacked your concept.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Isherwood I don't see where any one person's perception of the definition of ID is that important anyway. The creationists have adopted that title as their latest disguise for biblical creationism. That's all ID is known for currently. And the designer being referred to by them is none other than their god. Any other meaning it may have or had is no longer relevant. The theists have highjacked your concept.

In the broader context of society in general I agree, however within the context of a debate on Volconvo it is relevant. If Warren will not or can not clarify what he means by the terms he uses and obfuscates his meaning by using obscure words and philosophical jargon then he is not engaging in debate. He is not educating. He is providing a good example of how vacuous ID is.

Starboy

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Warren ID critics say there is no evidence for ID. My question is how do they know this if they have no idea what evidence for ID looks like? I would suspect an open-minded critic to say: "Here is what I would count as evidence for ID. I've looked for it and not found it."

Dude... "evidence" is something that has been found. There's no such thing as "undiscovered evidence".

[Jack]

There's no such thing as "undiscovered evidence".

Sure there is. It's used to prove the existence of unicorns all the time.

[Warren]

Quote by: belverron There is no way we're going to expand the scope of this thread that much. "Creationism vs. Evolution" is listed under "Massive Topics" on the frontpage. Take it there (or just read what others have said).

That's fine but ID as I've come to know it is constrained to the origin of life. The theory of evolution concerns itself with the evolution of life after it originated. The ID I subscribe to subsumes common descent.

[Warren]

Quote by: Starboy Warren stop it! You are the one claiming there is a reason to think that life was designed. You must support that claim.

Your got it wrong. Someone here made the claim that there is no evidence for ID. They need to support their claim. I asked them what they would count as evidence for ID. I assume that if someone claims there is no evidence for ID they would have some idea of what they think evidence for ID would look like and after searching for it came up empty. But that doesn't seem to be the case. So what is the basis for the no evidence claim?

It's better to simply say that you don't see any evidence for ID, rather than make a truth claim. The only way the claim "there is no evidence for ID" can be true is if one shows that ID is false (i.e., never happened).

[belverron]

Quote by: Warren That's fine but ID as I've come to know it is constrained to the origin of life. The theory of evolution concerns itself with the evolution of life after it originated. The ID I subscribe to subsumes common descent.

... Are you telling me that for all these pages all you've been trying to say is "I believe the first life-forms were created"?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Warren Your got it wrong. Someone here made the claim that there is no evidence for ID. They need to support their claim.

Fine then. I am aware of no evidence to support any claim purported to support any form of ID. As evidence I submit nothing.

I asked them what they would count as evidence for ID. I assume that if someone claims there is no evidence for ID they would have some idea of what they think evidence for ID would look like and after searching for it came up empty. But that doesn't seem to be the case. So what is the basis for the no evidence claim?

Evidence of no evidence would be no evidence. I have presented no evidence so therefore it supports my claim. If you think I am wrong and there is evidence then present it.

It's better to simply say that you don't see any evidence for ID, rather than make a truth claim. The only way the claim "there is no evidence for ID" can be true is if one shows that ID is false (i.e., never happened).

Hey if I am wrong present the evidence otherwise if you were an honest person you would have to also admit that there is no evidence that you are aware of.

Starboy